Greg Boyles

Potassium permanganate and glycerine is relativey safe as long as it is done in open air or a fumehood.

It would be vastly more cost effective to grow them in the tropics with warmth and high rainfall and provide them with extra fertiliser. Or use a naturally fast growing species such as bamboo. Any way use if steroids is generally associated with detrimental health effects, e.g. increased risk of heart failure etc. Increased use of auxins would likely have similar detrimental effects to the health and vitality of the tree.

I didn't say this John. I merely repeated what other authorities have said, in a number pages I was reading, who doubt know considerably more about the state of research on this matter than both of us. I think the prof from the UK was one of them. Where exactly have I made such an argument John? I have merely stated there is research to suggest that the rise in HDL levels as a result of alcohol consumption and the apparent lower risk of coronary heart disease may be a coincidence rather than causal. And I have stated that there is at least respected medical opinion that any level of alcohol consumption may be derimental to health. Niether are the same as the above double negative, which is indeed impossible to prove.

Because all the pages I found about the active ingredients of listerine stated that the main active ingredient is non edible alcohol. Not at all Johny boy. I am merely suggesting that niether of us is entirely correct as I have been digging further on this issue. It is not entirely clear as to what is a safe level of alcohol consumption, or if it is safe at all, but nor is it clear that a moderate amount of alcohol is harmless or provides a health benefit. Adequate long term and large scale research has not been carried out apparently. Both positions seems to be based on small scale and short term research. You originally refuted entirely my post about the possibility of there being no safe level of alcohol consumption. So it seems to me that you are also shifting your goal posts pal.

No doubt many in here know about the correlation between moderate alcohol consumption and increased HDL (High Density Lipoproteins) in the blood which is in turn associated with a decreased risk of heart disease. But in digging around on this subject I have also found that there has never been a long term study, over decades, to provide better evidence that there is a real causal link. Some researches have noted that those who drink moderately are statistically more likely to be of a healthy weight and have a healthy diet when compared to both heavy drinkers and non drinkers. So it is possible that the link between moderate alcohol consumption and lower risk of heart disease is not a causal one, but rather a coincidence. http://www.medicalne...leases/3968.php Let's assume that there is a causal link between raised HDLs and moderate alcohol consumption. Here they seem to be saying that moderate alcohol consumption is only a health benefit when the risk of coronory heart disease is greatest in older men. And that when you are young and your risk of cardiovascular disease is low, alcohol provides you with little or no health benefit. It is a well known fact that alcohol in the blood stream raises the level of High Density Lipoproteins and that people with naturally high levels of HDLs have a lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease. But please note this passage from Wikipedia: And according to what I have read, some mouth washes contain chlorohexidine, but not listerine given that you have probably looked at the active ingredients on the label. What the hell is non edible alcohol exactly?

Are you seriously inending to single handedly replace general relativity and fundamentally alter our understanding of the universe? You are either an undiscovered genius or just another Hutchinson.

How do you explain the experiments with sychronised atomic clocks, one of which is taken into space for a period of time and then both compared when brought back together. There is always a time difference which confirms the effect of gravity on time predicted by GR.

My understanding from that last link is that 'no safe level of consumption' is related to the detrimental effects of alcohol on the developing teenage brain and the foetus rather than to the development of cancer. So my above statement may be true but not for the reason I and the reporters were assuming and not for the segment of society that I and the reporters were assuming. Short of paying a visit to the university of Melbourne Ballieu Library and trauling through all the medical journals etc, I am probably unlikely to find the official scientific sources for this statement. But here is a federal government source also stating that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption by teenagers. Would you dismiss this is nothing more than an invalid opinion in the same category as a HeraldSun article or what ever? http://www.alcohol.g...re-teen-alcohol More digging..... Here is an article written by a UK university professor: http://www.guardian....hol-consumption John Cuthber do you still insist on dismissing this as an totally unsubstantiated opinion? I could equally say that you position that there is or may be a safe level of alcohol consumption is equally unsubstantiated opinion most likely being generated by the alcoholic beverage industry. The only source that you have so far based you position on is the position on alcohol consumption of the anti cancer council. But this is an advocacy organisation that is not engaged directly in scientific research and relies upon studies from universities etc. So one might conclude that their position is an opinion based upon the scientific papers scientists they have so far read and consulted. So where are your direct medical scientific sources that support your position that there is or may be a safe level of alcohol consumption? So far I have provided you with one to support my position.

Fair enough. htp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100729075015.htm But on further digging it would appear that this message was specifically concerned with teenage binge drinking, and pregnant woman also, but was being applied more generally. Another lesson in not taking for granted what is said in the media even when they quote credible souces.

Thanks, just googled it and you are correct. Aint chemistry fun - was my all time favourite subject at high school.

Used to get a few laughs painting this stuff on door handles occasionally. But I have never known exactly what compound you get when you disolve iodine in 880 ammonia. Can anyone enlighten me?

I have recanted this already after reading further about isopropyl alcohol, about mouth washes and about chlorohexidine. My recollection of the details of the matter was simply incorrect. But it does not change the fact that medical authorities now regard alcohol containing mouth washes carcinogenic and that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption in general. Please refer to the links below. This is obviously the medical warning I remember seeing. But it is related to the ethanol content, with no mention of chlorohexidine From 2009.... http://www.dailytele...i-1111118530255 And regarding there being no safe level of alcohol consumption..... http://www.abc.net.a...ed/1479126.html Sure about that? http://www.sciencefo...209&qpid=644986 Consider if your mouth wash contains both ethanol and chlorohexidine. There a signficant tax on alcoholic beverages, but doesn't that extend other products that contain ethanol in a drinkable form. For example the alcoholic essences in the baking isles of supermarkets were being used a cheap source of alcohol by youths but governments have since extended that tax to these items. With the result that the manufactures no longer use ethanol as a base for these essences. Is my recollection correct here? In which case manufactures of mouth washes would use alternative alcohols if they could. Probably why mouth washes are rather expensive.

I am well aware of that Anilkumar. But you were giving me the impression that you believed that mathematics told lies as far warped spacetime that does not tally with your every day experience of the universe. You are obviously not an entirely strong english speaker/writer so perhaps the point you have really been trying to make has been lost on me and we have been debating across purposes.

Perhaps it is not so much the chlorohexidine as the perhaps unavoidable impurities in it: http://www.mendeley.com/research/toxic-impurities-in-chlorhexidine-digluconate/

Interesting, although not being particularly gifted at maths I find it difficult to grasp a lot of the details of the standard model.

"Isopropyl alcohol is oxidized by the liver into acetone by alcohol dehydrogenase. " So medical drug authorities would not allow its use in mouth washes given this. Either I misunderstood the news item or the reporter got it wrong - it was some years ago and I only vaguely recollect the details. Found a mention of methyl alcohol (probably on small amount) sometimes being used in mouth washes - that would be rather dangerous surely. Thankyou for instigating me to correct a misconception that I had picked up by the way. Actually on further reading, I probably got isopropyl alcohol confused with chlorohexidine (as far as mount washes go) as both are common antiseptics used in a wide range of products. http://www.drugs.com/pro/chlorhexidine.html Chlorohexidine is known to be carcinogenic beyond a certain dose. As with anything in life there are both advantages and disadvantages. I believe various components in red wine have antioxidant properties and confer a health benefit, however the high alcohol content also confers a detriment apparently. This was also in a prominent news report on Australian television, by a credible medical scientists/doctor, that I do remember quite well as I was surprised for the same reason as you. Here is a link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_cancer. You can take it from here if you wish. Interesting.....so there is a segment of the population that is particularly at risk from alcohol induced cancer.

How are photons directly related to a magnetic field? As I understand it magentic fields are directly related to electrons.

Not that I have ever looked at the active ingredients, but I seem to remember a news item some time ago about the fact that the isopropyl alcohol in mouth washes may be carcinogenic. But no doubt some products use isopropyl alcohol and others use ethanol. Ethanol, or more precisely its oxidation product acetaldehyde, is also believed to be carcinogenic. Recent studies have indicated that there is no safe level of consumption of alcoholic beverages.

I was getting the impression that that is how Anilkumar was thinking - that relativity is nothing more than a mathematical illusions that does not apply to reality as we experience it, i.e. his constant references to space not equalling spacetime etc. My position is that relativity does indeed describe reality as we experience it but that we cannot directly perceive its full richness due our limited senses.

We can only ever investigate quantum mechanics and relativity etc through mathematical abstractions because the reality is beyond any detection and comprehension we can acheive through our senses, i.e. the real world.

If you want to put it that way then I would say that the mathematical theory of relativity actually replaces 'space' with 'spacetime'. 'Space' is therefore relegated to the long list of discredited human ideas such as flat earth and the four elements or fire, water, earth and air.

Well with spacetime warping it is simply not possible to take the long cut is it. You have no choice but to the trust the mathematics that has given us the right answers and right results in all other human endeavours so far.

1) It is impossible to remove every last trace of blood from a human. 2) The virus is not entirely restricted the the blood vessels. It almost certainly is also distributed through out the lymphatic system as well, and it is not possible to drain the lymphatic system. 3) It is a retrovirus I believe, and retroviruses have the ability to integrate a DNA copy of their RNA genome into the chromosomes of host cells. Even if you could drain all bodily fluids from a human body and then reconstitute it, the virus would still be present in some of the cells and would eventually re-emerge.

I believe some medical scientists have discovered that the isopropyl alcohol used in mouth washes may be a carcinogen.

It appears to be that you some how believe that there are two versions of space that exist side by side. One that is linked to time and can be warped by matter, that offends your perception of everyday experience, and one that is not linked to time and cannot be warped, that you 'like'. It is not the theory of spacetime warping that is flawed here mate. The problem is that the word space and its definition were determined long ago before the true nature of space and the universe was understood. So it is the dictionary definition of space that has been found to be not entirely correct rather than your notion that the theory of spacetime warping is incorrect. There is only one reality and your dictionary does not adequately describe it. Perhaps the dictionary definition of 'space' needs to be updated to reflect the reality of the universe as we currently understand it. No 'Anilkumar' spacetime is not an mathematical delusion, spacetime is very real. However we are 3 dimensional creatures trapped in 3 dimensions with senses that are restricted to 3 dimensions. Spacetime involves a 4th physical dimensions that we can neither perceive nor ever experience through our senses. But fortunately the tool of mathematics allows us to throw off these shackles and explore the universe beyond the limitations of our 3 dimensional senses. Allow me to put this to you another way. No doubt you would agree that mobile phones, computers and electron microscopes etc all work and are not the result of mathematical or psychological delusions. All these things contain semi conductors and other eletronic components. And these designed to work a a specific and convenient way (for our electronic deivces) based on the fixed properties of atoms and sub atmoic particles. There is no way that we can directly perceive atoms and sub atomic particles because they are simply to small. We can only rely on our mathematics to guide us in creating components that make our electronic devices work. If we agree that mathematics works to describe and create our electronic devices, and that it is not all a mathematical delusion, then why can we not also agree that the same mathematics provides an accurate description of the true nature of spacetime/space even if we can't comprehend the answer in terms of sight and touch etc?